Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Justin Couch]

On 14/02/2017 7:33 PM, Mark Newton wrote:

The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it stresses 
that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor will be 
running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that person’s 
tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, everyone goes 
home.

Military-style chain of command.

In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the flight: 
He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new instructor 
wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to polish before he 
was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can assume that he’d 
been around the traps enough to pick up enough life experience to know when 
he’s being sold a pup.


As someone that has spent a lot my career mentoring, if not outright 
teaching, I'm going disagree partially with these statements.


Firstly that "The GFA" teaches this. It doesn't. Individual instructors 
do, because they like to be The Boss and control others. In my club I'd 
say it is a 50/50 split (typically along the lines of those that are 
still active X/C pilots). Some are pushing pilots to think, some push 
them to be conservative.


From the teaching perspective, many students don't have enough self 
confidence and it is the job of the teacher to push them student outside 
of the student's comfort zone in order for them to advance. These 
students, if left to their own devices, will seek comfort only in the 
areas that they know already and won't want to push it. For some, that 
means more than gentle nudges are sometimes needed.


I can't comment specifically about the surroundings of the PW-5 student 
and that situation. But to point to this as a failing of the GFA 
training and structure is, to me, a leap too far.


What I think is wrong is not the hierarchy, but how instructors are 
selected and trained. Only works if you're a buddy of the CFI, and that 
there is no teaching on how to teach. Our instructors are basically 
expert pilots, but they are not expert educators. Fix the training of 
instructors and the rest of the system issues disappear into the 
background.


(FWIW, catching up on other parts - yes I agree that L2 Ind Ops and how 
it is issued is not right and I really don't see why we have L1 and L2 
as L1 is basically useless since you can't actually operate independently)


--
Justin
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

Here is a case of a Coroner finding “… apparent confusion among the members of 
the club about who was responsible for the different tasks involved in take-off 
and landing, and who, ultimately, was in charge of the entire activity.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/complacency-amateur-rules-contributed-to-fatal-glider-collision-coroner-finds-20141002-10peab.html
 


For a takeoff: The pilot is supposed to be in charge of the entire activity. 
Other tasks are performed under the pilot’s delegation. The pilot knows he must 
give way to landing traffic, can’t see behind, delegates “all clear above and 
behind” to someone diligent and skillful enough to do it correctly.

“Time and time again I heard evidence of confusion about ultimate 
responsibility,” the Coroner said. Of course she did: The GFA system creates 
that confusion.

MOSP Pt 2 9.1.6: “The Duty Instructor is the person authorised to take complete 
charge of a gliding operation on any given day … and has responsibility for the 
safe and efficient conduct of all aspects of the operation.”

What does that mean? 

I put it to you that nobody at any gliding club (much less the L2 Instructors 
who serve as duty instructor) can credibly answer that question.

I also put it to you that people who have never experienced aviation life 
outside the GFA system can convince themselves that MOSP Pt2 9.1.6 is normal; 
and even feel a degree of discomfort when it’s suggested that pilots must be 
responsible for themselves.

An instructor cannot possibly be “responsible” for all aspects of the operation 
because s/he can’t even see them, much less assert control over them. What 
happens when the instructor is off on a soaring flight? Who’s responsible for 
“all aspects of the operation” when s/he isn’t there? Does everyone stop the 
winch until the instructor lands? 

How does it make any realistic difference whether a duty instructor is absent 
by virtue of being in flight, or absent by virtue of being in bed, or on a golf 
course? 

At what point does responsibility transition from the duty instructor to the 
pilot when a glider departs on a downwind-dash cross-country flight, operating 
completely independently, without having qualified for an independent ops 
rating, with no intention of returning? If they crash during an outlanding, is 
it the duty instructor’s responsibility? What if they crash during a launch 
accident? Or have a mid-air during pre-departure thermalling?

How is that “responsibility” realized? Is there some kind of inquiry into the 
duty instructor when some random visiting pilot splats into his operation by 
spinning-in on the final turn? Does the duty instructor get sued by relatives? 
Can they get arrested for criminal negligence if they know that a trainee isn’t 
ready to fly solo and fail to communicate it to anyone who could conceivably be 
involved in launching them?  Or is “responsibility” just a word on a page that 
means nothing?

“All aspects of the operation.” “Complete charge.” “Responsibility.” What do 
those phrases mean? Why did GFA specifically choose to employ those words to 
describe what the duty instructor is for?

GFA created this problem. If Coroners are confused about who’s in charge, it’s 
because GFA’s MOSP has created a system in which someone who doesn’t even need 
to be there “takes complete charge of a gliding operation.” Club members get to 
refer to 9.1.6 to say the duty instructor is responsible for any screw-ups, and 
duty instructors get to say they can’t possibly be responsible for everything, 
and the end result is that Coroners get annoyed that nobody is responsible for 
anything at all.

MOSP Pt 2 section 9 is all about establishing a chain of command, and it’s 
frankly a load of contemptible bullshit. It compromises safety by creating an 
unnecessary power gradient without effectively teaching pilots how to manage 
one; and it disempowers and infantalizes otherwise qualified pilots, while 
simultaneously enabling ops by people who have never been taught to be 
responsible for the operational decision making skills they need to maintain 
their own life and the lives of those around them. Then, at the end of the day, 
when a case makes it to that courtroom that everyone is so terrified of, the 
“responsibility” inherent in the chain of command turns out to be so 
meaningless that a Coroner can’t work out who’s in charge: “Surely when 
anything becomes the responsibility of all it is in fact the responsibility of 
none.”

If I was taking off at Goulburn in my RV-6, and I didn’t make radio calls, 
didn’t check approach paths, and got myself killed by manoeuvring in front of 
someone else on late final, I can guarantee you that the Coroner investigating 
my death would not be in any doubt about who was responsible for what.

What makes GFA operations so special?


  - mark



> 

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Richard Frawley]

was not is the case recently where a coroner stated that responsibility must be 
with the pilot and no other?


> On 14 Feb 2017, at 7:33 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek  wrote:
>> 
>> It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
>> responsibility demonstrated?
>> The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get 
>> into a single seater?
>> 
>> "The instructor MADE me do it yer honour”
> 
> The GFA system infantalizes pilots.
> 
> The law of primacy: if something is important, teach it first, correctly.
> 
> If quality of operational decision making is important, the GFA syllabus 
> should be teaching it from lesson 1: What are your personal minimums? What 
> are your go/no-go criteria? How do you manage authority gradients? How do you 
> “step back” and create a bit of space for independent judgement when you’re 
> confronted with an uncomfortable situation?
> 
> The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it stresses 
> that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor will be 
> running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that person’s 
> tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, everyone goes 
> home.
> 
> Military-style chain of command.
> 
> In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the 
> flight: He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new 
> instructor wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to 
> polish before he was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can 
> assume that he’d been around the traps enough to pick up enough life 
> experience to know when he’s being sold a pup.
> 
> By any reasonable outside examination, those factors should have been a 
> psychological defence against him accepting a launch.  “Nope, I’m out.”
> 
> And yet: A level-2 instructor completely disarmed him, and was able to talk 
> him into a serious injury via precisely the failure-mode that he already knew 
> he was vulnerable to.
> 
> From day one exposure to the GFA system, he should have been taught to 
> politely tell instructors to go and get fornicated if they behave like that.
> 
> He wasn’t, and he suffered serious spinal injuries.
> 
> How has the syllabus been changed to prevent a recurrence of that accident?  
> Ha-ha, oh look, it hasn’t changed at all: This is what we’re supposed to 
> expect when it’s working correctly.
> 
> Despite that: The system wasn’t applied correctly anyway. The MOSP says the 
> duty instructor is operationally responsible for all aspects of the day. Was 
> the duty instructor sanctioned for this accident? Was there a disciplinary 
> inquiry for letting the pilot launch? Or for letting the other instructor 
> clear him to launch without observing his flying aptitude? What exactly does 
> “responsibility” mean in the GFA system anyway?
> 
> We accommodate these issues in other aviation disciplines by making a very 
> clear rule: The pilot is operationally responsible for all aspects of his/her 
> flight. That’s what the law says. That’s what the GFA system subverts.
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek  wrote:
> 
> It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
> responsibility demonstrated?
> The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get into 
> a single seater?
> 
> "The instructor MADE me do it yer honour”

The GFA system infantalizes pilots.

The law of primacy: if something is important, teach it first, correctly.

If quality of operational decision making is important, the GFA syllabus should 
be teaching it from lesson 1: What are your personal minimums? What are your 
go/no-go criteria? How do you manage authority gradients? How do you “step 
back” and create a bit of space for independent judgement when you’re 
confronted with an uncomfortable situation?

The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it stresses 
that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor will be 
running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that person’s 
tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, everyone goes 
home.

Military-style chain of command.

In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the flight: 
He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new instructor 
wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to polish before he 
was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can assume that he’d 
been around the traps enough to pick up enough life experience to know when 
he’s being sold a pup.

By any reasonable outside examination, those factors should have been a 
psychological defence against him accepting a launch.  “Nope, I’m out.”

And yet: A level-2 instructor completely disarmed him, and was able to talk him 
into a serious injury via precisely the failure-mode that he already knew he 
was vulnerable to.

From day one exposure to the GFA system, he should have been taught to politely 
tell instructors to go and get fornicated if they behave like that.

He wasn’t, and he suffered serious spinal injuries.

How has the syllabus been changed to prevent a recurrence of that accident?  
Ha-ha, oh look, it hasn’t changed at all: This is what we’re supposed to expect 
when it’s working correctly.

Despite that: The system wasn’t applied correctly anyway. The MOSP says the 
duty instructor is operationally responsible for all aspects of the day. Was 
the duty instructor sanctioned for this accident? Was there a disciplinary 
inquiry for letting the pilot launch? Or for letting the other instructor clear 
him to launch without observing his flying aptitude? What exactly does 
“responsibility” mean in the GFA system anyway?

We accommodate these issues in other aviation disciplines by making a very 
clear rule: The pilot is operationally responsible for all aspects of his/her 
flight. That’s what the law says. That’s what the GFA system subverts.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mike Borgelt]

At 04:44 PM 2/14/2017, you wrote:
It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
responsibility demonstrated? The pilot had already made a fist of 
the conditions, so why on earth get into a single seater? "The 
instructor MADE me do it yer honour" -



Yes that nicely illustrates the SYSTEMIC problem when people are 
indoctrinated to believe that there is a chain of responsibility with 
competent people above them, instead of being told from the beginning 
that when they are pilot in command the buck stops with you.


The other systemic problem is the continued existence of instructors 
like that and despite the formal existence of the instructor 
panel/RTO/CTO/GFA Board   the lack of actual supervision and 
responsibility of those people.


Mike






Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Derek]

It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
responsibility demonstrated?
The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get into a 
single seater?

"The instructor MADE me do it yer honour"

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Justin Couch
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 9:29 AM
To: aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

On 11/02/2017 9:07 AM, Mark Newton wrote:

> Of course, this is all theorizing. We’ve had 70 years to find out: Have any 
> GFA duty instructors been found liable for any glider accidents?

Not sure if specifically liable, but the Beverley PW-5 was written off due to 
poor instructor behaviour. That instructor is no longer with the club, or I 
believe gliding any longer. The club had the glider self-insured so that rules 
out that bit, but the pilot was badly injured, so the health insurance side 
might have something going against the instructor that approved the student to 
fly the aircraft.  The SOAR report was published in the GFA mag, but I've 
attached a copy of it. I reckon this is about as close to negligence that you 
can get on behalf of an instructor.

--
Justin

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Paul Bart]

On 11 February 2017 at 14:39, Mike Borgelt 
wrote:

> ​I a​
> m talking about very poor judgement/ability on the part of the people who
> are meant to be doing the supervising.
>
> Who guards the guardians?
>


Quite some time ago an Australian Air Force crew ​managed to put a
perfectly flyable F-111 into a ground in northern NSW, killing both.

Not so long ago an Air France crew plonked perfectly flyable Airbus into
the Atlantic, three pilots combining their collective training / knowledge
/ supervision for about 10 minutes before they killed everyone aboard.

Quite recently an Asiana air crew flew a perfectly flyable Boeing in to a
seawall in San Francisco. Again all pilots would have been supervised
trained by a professional organisation.

I am sure you would be able to recall many more accidents of similar nature.

People will manage to screw up no matter what training they have received.


Cheers

Paul







Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mike Borgelt]

I'm talking about very poor judgement/ability on 
the part of the people who are meant to be doing the supervising.


Who guards the guardians?

Mike

At 02:21 PM 2/11/2017, you wrote:

On 11 February 2017 at 14:05, Mike Borgelt 
<mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> 
wrote:

When will the carnage end?


​When people decide to be sensible. No amount 
of training will mitigate against poor judgment 
at a particular instance in time.


Bruce Taylor, cleary a glider pilot with loads 
of talent and currency has recently written an 
article in the gliding magazine how he barely 
escaped from a situation that he put himself into.Â


Should he be purged also?Â
    ​


Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mike Borgelt]

Interesting little anomaly:


Supervised driving hours
40 hours:
16-year-old crash rates 21 percent lower
50 hours:
16-year-old crash rates 15 percent lower

Note also this study applies to very young drivers, not older more 
mature adults.


Mike




Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Paul Bart]

On 11 February 2017 at 14:05, Mike Borgelt 
wrote:

> When will the carnage end?
>

​When people decide to be sensible. No amount of training will mitigate
against poor judgment at a particular instance in time.

Bruce Taylor, cleary a glider pilot with loads of talent and currency has
recently written an article in the gliding magazine how he barely escaped
from a situation that he put himself into.

Should he be purged also?
​


Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mike Borgelt]

Sorry, there was a word wrong in previous post.





That Beverley accident isn't just negligence or 
poor behaviour on the part of the instructor.


In a heirarchical system like the GFA commands 
come down from  on high and responsibility flows upwards.


The instructor appears to have been negligent. 
What about the club instructor panel to whom he 
is responsible? The RTO/ops, the CTO/ops and the 
GFA Board who insist on having this system? Why 
was somebody who didn't have current medical 
certification even acting as an instructor? 
Surely losing the medical loses the ability to 
act as an instructor in any capacity.


I just showed this report to an Army attack 
helicopter instructor (1800 hours military and 
200 civilian fixed wing and he is being told he 
is light on experience to be an instructor) and 
asked him what would happen if this happened in 
the Army (another heirarchical system). There 
would be a Board of Inquiry and people from 
Chief of Army on down would have some serious 
explaining to do. Careers would most likely be ended. Charges might be brought.


At another time and place I visited one bloke 
was getting his single seat glider ready to fly 
when it transpired he was less than 3 months out 
from a heart bypass and hadn't even got 
clearance to drive. The instructor of the day 
had also had a  heart bypass a few years before 
and his CASA PPL medical was currently under suspension.


A few months ago I heard of an incident where a 
senior instructor was taking a student for her 
first instructional flight and he let her fly 
down to 800 feet joining circuit whereupon  she 
managed to get the glider into a spin. The 
instructor did recover at about 200 feet AGL and landed OK.


These were just random occurrences. I'm sure 
there are many more. The Ararat crash in April 1 
2012 should have led to a wholesale review of 
the system and a serious purge of instructor 
ranks. It was almost the same as a crash at 
Beverley several years before where the outcome 
wasn't so tragic and the crash Justin posted has 
some parallels to both. Instructor incompetence.


Would you let anyone you cared about learn to 
fly in a system filled with arseclowns like 
this? Professional aviators who also glide should be ashamed of their sport.


The GFA clearly needs adult supervision. It is 
evidently unable to properly manage its own affairs.


When will the carnage end?

Mike












08:29 AM 2/11/2017, you wrote:

On 11/02/2017 9:07 AM, Mark Newton wrote:

Of course, this is all theorizing. We’ve had 
70 years to find out: Have any GFA duty 
instructors been found liable for any glider accidents?


Not sure if specifically liable, but the 
Beverley PW-5 was written off due to poor 
instructor behaviour. That instructor is no 
longer with the club, or I believe gliding any 
longer. The club had the glider self-insured so 
that rules out that bit, but the pilot was 
badly injured, so the health insurance side 
might have something going against the 
instructor that approved the student to fly the 
aircraft.  The SOAR report was published in the 
GFA mag, but I've attached a copy of it. I 
reckon this is about as close to negligence 
that you can get on behalf of an instructor.


--
Justin



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mike Borgelt]

That Beverley accident isn't just negligence or 
poor behaviour on the part of the instructor.


In a heirarchical system like the GFA commands 
come down from  on high and responsibility flows upwards.


The instructor appears to have been negligent. 
What about the club instructor panel to whom he 
is responsible? The RTO/ops, the CTO/ops and the 
GFA Board who insist on having this system? Why 
was somebody who didn't have current medical 
certification even acting as an instructor? 
Surely losing the medical loses the ability to 
act as an instructor in any capacity.


I just showed this report to an Army attack 
helicopter instructor (1800 hours military and 
200 civilian fixed wing and he is being told he 
is light on experience to be an instructor) and 
asked him what would happen if this happened in 
the Army (another heirarchical system). There 
would be a Board of Inquiry and people from Chief 
of Army on down would have some serious 
explaining to do. Careers would most likely be ended. Charges might be brought.


At another time and place I visited one bloke was 
getting his single seat glider ready to fly when 
it transpired he was less than 3 months out from 
a heart bypass and hadn't even got clearance to 
fly. The instructor of the day had also had 
a  heart bypass a few years before and his CASA 
PPL medical was currently under suspension.


A few months ago I heard of an incident where a 
senior instructor was taking a student for her 
first instructional flight and he let her fly 
down to 800 feet joining circuit whereupon  she 
managed to get the glider into a spin. The 
instructor did recover at about 200 feet AGL and landed OK.


These were just random occurrences. I'm sure 
there are many more. The Ararat crash in April 1 
2012 should have led to a wholesale review of the 
system and a serious purge of instructor ranks. 
It was almost the same as a crash at Beverley 
several years before where the outcome wasn't so 
tragic and the crash Justin posted has some 
parallels to both. Instructor incompetence.


Would you let anyone you cared about learn to fly 
in a system filled with arseclowns like this? 
Professional aviators who also glide should be ashamed of their sport.


The GFA clearly needs adult supervision. It is 
evidently unable to properly manage its own affairs.


When will the carnage end?

Mike












08:29 AM 2/11/2017, you wrote:

On 11/02/2017 9:07 AM, Mark Newton wrote:

Of course, this is all theorizing. We’ve had 
70 years to find out: Have any GFA duty 
instructors been found liable for any glider accidents?


Not sure if specifically liable, but the 
Beverley PW-5 was written off due to poor 
instructor behaviour. That instructor is no 
longer with the club, or I believe gliding any 
longer. The club had the glider self-insured so 
that rules out that bit, but the pilot was badly 
injured, so the health insurance side might have 
something going against the instructor that 
approved the student to fly the aircraft.  The 
SOAR report was published in the GFA mag, but 
I've attached a copy of it. I reckon this is 
about as close to negligence that you can get on behalf of an instructor.


--
Justin



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Richard Frawley]

as a holder of a PPL as well, I agree. If there is extra training needed in the 
GPC syllabus then so be it.

If on the annual check there are a few more things to tick off as well that is 
also fine.

I would be very interested to hear from any CFI's on the list as to what are 
the risks being mitigated by having both L1 and L2 ops in place. How does 
having a L2 instructor around help mitigate with those risks? 

Richard









> On 11 Feb 2017, at 12:55 AM, Al Borowski  wrote:
> 
> I'd like to see the GPC give the same rights as L2 Independent Ops,
> but only require a checkride to maintain it (just like PPL/RAA)
> instead of being reliant on a CFI's annual blessing. If a GPC pilot
> isn't considered good enough to be responsible for their own actions,
> something is terribly wrong with the training system.
> 
> A driver's license is yours until you do something silly to lose it,
> and you are responsible for your own driving. The same goes for
> PPL/RAA, boating, and a huge pile of other activities. Just like these
> activities, equipment owners/clubs are free to place whatever
> additional requirements they want on the use of their facilities.
> 
> If a GPC holder can't be trusted to be responsible for their own
> operations then they should never have been given a GPC.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al
> 
> 
>> On 10/02/2017, Simon Rammelt  wrote:
>> please explain the changes you want to make.
>> 
>>> On 10 Feb 2017 1:40 pm, "Richard Frawley"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have had an initial positive response from the GFA in terms of making
>>> changes to the L2 Indi Ops. To help get further traction i need a pilot
>>> from WA, TAS, Vic, NT and QLD to put a common request to their
>>> appropriate
>>> State Bodies. (such is the way things need to work).
>>> 
>>> Bernard has already offered for  SA and I live in NSW.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to host some Go To Meeting conference calls to kick things off
>>> once we have a quorum. We can have more than one rep.
>>> 
>>> Look forward to seeing if we make a positive outcome here.
>>> 
>>> Please drop me an email if you are able to help.
>>> 
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Feb 2017, at 4:19 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
> Many of us thought that the GPC was going to give holders responsibility for 
> themselves.
> Perhaps some situations where people felt they were under an instructor's 
> "control" only happened because the instructor was concerned about legal 
> liability under the present rules. Seems an unnecessary burden on instructors.

Having control creates liability.

You can be liable for an act under a range of different constructions if you 
know something is happening, and you have the ability to prevent it from 
happening, and you fail to act.

Giving instructors the power to intervene in everyone’s operations (e.g., by 
giving them authority to checkfly or ground pilots) means they have the unique 
ability to know about and prevent virtually anything from happening. So they’re 
in the liability firing line.

The present rules place the duty instructor in charge of an operation. If they 
were redefined so that instructors were only in charge of the instructional 
aspects of the operation, with no authority over pilots who weren’t undergoing 
training, then their liability would likely be constrained.

Of course, this is all theorizing. We’ve had 70 years to find out: Have any GFA 
duty instructors been found liable for any glider accidents?

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Jim Staniforth]

Many of us thought that the GPC was going to give holders responsibility 
for themselves.
Perhaps some situations where people felt they were under an 
instructor's "control" only happened because the instructor was 
concerned about legal liability under the present rules. Seems an 
unnecessary burden on instructors.

Jim

-- Original Message --
From: "Al Borowski" 

If a GPC holder can't be trusted to be responsible for their own
operations then they should never have been given a GPC.
Cheers,
Al


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Al Borowski]

I'd like to see the GPC give the same rights as L2 Independent Ops,
but only require a checkride to maintain it (just like PPL/RAA)
instead of being reliant on a CFI's annual blessing. If a GPC pilot
isn't considered good enough to be responsible for their own actions,
something is terribly wrong with the training system.

A driver's license is yours until you do something silly to lose it,
and you are responsible for your own driving. The same goes for
PPL/RAA, boating, and a huge pile of other activities. Just like these
activities, equipment owners/clubs are free to place whatever
additional requirements they want on the use of their facilities.

If a GPC holder can't be trusted to be responsible for their own
operations then they should never have been given a GPC.

Cheers,

Al


On 10/02/2017, Simon Rammelt  wrote:
> please explain the changes you want to make.
>
> On 10 Feb 2017 1:40 pm, "Richard Frawley"  wrote:
>
>> I have had an initial positive response from the GFA in terms of making
>> changes to the L2 Indi Ops. To help get further traction i need a pilot
>> from WA, TAS, Vic, NT and QLD to put a common request to their
>> appropriate
>> State Bodies. (such is the way things need to work).
>>
>> Bernard has already offered for  SA and I live in NSW.
>>
>> I am happy to host some Go To Meeting conference calls to kick things off
>> once we have a quorum. We can have more than one rep.
>>
>> Look forward to seeing if we make a positive outcome here.
>>
>> Please drop me an email if you are able to help.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring